C.J. Hamilton v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing
C.J. Hamilton v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing - 984 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Licensee (Colin Hamilton) was arrested Jan. 8, 2016 for suspected DUI and refused a requested blood test; DOT issued a suspension notice Feb. 3, 2016 under the Implied Consent Law.
- Licensee appealed to Chester County Common Pleas on Feb. 22, 2016; a de novo hearing was scheduled for April 21, 2016 but was continued to May 12, 2016 per the court's April 21 order.
- At the May 12, 2016 hearing neither Licensee nor his counsel appeared; the Department presented certified records and officer testimony; Common Pleas denied the appeal and reinstated the suspension that day.
- Licensee’s counsel received a May 26 DOT suspension notice; counsel filed an appeal to this Court on June 16, 2016 (four days late) and later asserted he did not receive the May 12 order until late July because it was mailed to his old address.
- The parties disputed (1) whether the appeal to this Court was untimely and whether nunc pro tunc relief was warranted due to alleged mailing errors, and (2) whether Licensee (or counsel) received notice of the rescheduled May 12 hearing, implicating due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal to this Court was timely or whether nunc pro tunc relief should be granted | Hamilton says his appeal was late because he (via counsel) did not receive the May 12 order mailed to wrong/old address; seeks nunc pro tunc due to mailing/default by prothonotary | DOT invokes mailbox rule and presumes proper mailing/receipt; argues appeal should be quashed as untimely | Remanded to trial court for evidentiary hearing to decide if nunc pro tunc relief is warranted (factual question) |
| Whether Licensee received notice of the rescheduled May 12 hearing (due process) | Hamilton contends nonreceipt of the May 12 order implies the rescheduling notice also was mis-mailed/not received, so he was denied notice and opportunity to be heard | DOT contends presumption of receipt stands unless rebutted; Licensee must be allowed to present evidence to rebut | If trial court grants nunc pro tunc, it should also decide (factually) whether Licensee received timely notice of the May 12 hearing; remanded for that determination |
| Whether court properly decided merits of refusal/suspension at the May 12 hearing | Hamilton argues hearing notice defects deprived him of ability to contest merits | DOT relies on officer testimony and certified records to support suspension reinstatement | Court did not reach merits on appeal; if nunc pro tunc granted and notice defect found, merits hearing/order may be reopened; otherwise suspension to be reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiman by Trahey v. City of Philadelphia, 564 A.2d 557 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (nunc pro tunc relief only for extraordinary circumstances or court breakdown such as failure to notify parties)
- Nixon v. Nixon, 198 A. 154 (Pa. 1938) (court operation breakdown found where prothonotary failed to give notice of decree)
- Volk v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 49 A.3d 38 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (mailbox rule creates rebuttable presumption of receipt and addressee may rebut with evidence)